Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Overshooting The Final Approach Course  
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4712 times:

Just found this article about overshoots when turning final to parallel runways.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-drive-faa-approach-change-374846/

Always amazed me how many overshoots you hear of when clearing aircraft for a visual approach from a base or downwind, and even after they've been told not to overshoot because of aircraft on final to the parallel runway.


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Agreed. I think a lot of it has to do with automation and quite frankly, rusting of skills. The two go hand in hand. I can sit there and watch what's going on, the vector I'm getting and based on winds aloft almost always predict when the AP will overshoot. By the time I intervene it's almost always too late and end up a dot off.

At most airports it's not a huge issue, but I'm just waiting for something bad to happen in DEN. Why they put arrivals on the west side of the field while not using the east is beyond me.



DMI
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4498 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Thread starter):
Always amazed me how many overshoots you hear of when clearing aircraft for a visual approach from a base or downwind, and even after they've been told not to overshoot because of aircraft on final to the parallel runway.

Try going back to flying the pattern sometime after spending months, or even years, flying nothing but IFR. Yeah, pattern skills get rusty, especially the part about thinking ahead of the plane so that you don't overshoot the base to final turn   Throw in a nice crosswind to muck things up, too... 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4490 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 2):
Try going back to flying the pattern sometime after spending months, or even years, flying nothing but IFR. Yeah, pattern skills get rusty, especially the part about thinking ahead of the plane so that you don't overshoot the base to final turn Throw in a nice crosswind to muck things up, too



Not that I don't agree with you, but most of these are very professional pilots using the airports where the 30 degree intercept will be required. Professional pilots with in just about every case in an aircraft with a map showing the runway centerline so I won't completely agree about the IFR part of your statement.

Are the controllers leading them down the wrong path with the vector, in some cases yes. Funny thing is, if the 1,000' of vertical separation was always maintained until established on final as it is during IMC flight conditions this might have not been issue as the overshoots would still have the vertical separation in place.

Education, and more for all involved and that can't be bad.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4445 times:

well if I may add most of the overshoots I've seen are from going too fast and often up to 90deg to the final course. i jet will not capture the loc from 90deg at 220kt without an overshoot.

User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

I´m not into this very deep, but isn´t this an issue with the autopilot? though the pilot is still responsible, this part of flight is often (mostly?) flown by the autopilot. are autopilots too inaccurate? is an improvement of the automatic systems possible/planned/necessary?

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 4):
jet will not capture the loc from 90deg at 220kt without an overshoot.



Hell neither will a C152!  
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 4):
most of the overshoots I've seen are from going too fast and often up to 90deg to the final course



I'd say from my seat in a control room that speed is certainly a problem however; a visual clearance off a base or downwind the pilot whether hand flying or turning knobs should not attempt an intercept of any angle greater than 20-30 degrees. If you don't have the room to complete a nice standard rate turn then bail out rather than overshoot. Just my point of view.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4370 times:

Quoting horstroad (Reply 5):

I´m not into this very deep, but isn´t this an issue with the autopilot?

It's not exactly an "issue". It is a property of the autopillot but it's a known property so, if the flight crew aren't managing the automation correctly, that's really not on the autopilot. The problem is that dialing the gain on localizer tracking up high enough to prevent overshoot causes lots of other undesirable properties.

Quoting horstroad (Reply 5):
are autopilots too inaccurate?

Not really. They do what they're told to do. It's a compromise between flight path stability, response time, and not "yank-and-banking" the airplane for no real gain. Having zero overshoot has some implications for the control system that cause other problems.

Quoting horstroad (Reply 5):
is an improvement of the automatic systems possible/planned/necessary?

Yes, yes, and not really. It's a "nice to have." The latest autopilots are predictive and will start the turn early (i.e. before they actually capture the localizer) to help mitigate overshoot. It doesn't eliminate overshoot but it's a lot better.

Tom.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4358 times:

Interesting article.

Much of my small GA flying is at an airport (AFW) with parallel runways 600 feet apart. We get to use the 'far' runway for TNG practice a lot. Also a good hamburger stop.

The other runway can often have a mix of aircraft from turboprops, military jets (T-1, T-38, F-18, AV-8 - are some I've seen on parallel approach) and a few civilian jets including B767 (AA maint base at AFW) and occasionally an FDX DC-10/MD-11, B752 or B727.

Now flying a very small light GA plane, I'm always very careful to locate my big brothers - but I have noticed that some of the AA and FDX pilots do seem to not be in practice with lining up visually. I've never had anything close to a conflict situation.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
It's not exactly an "issue". It is a property of the autopillot but it's a known property so, if the flight crew aren't managing the automation correctly, that's really not on the autopilot. The problem is that dialing the gain on localizer tracking up high enough to prevent overshoot causes lots of other undesirable properties.



Great explanation, thanks Tom!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Can I make a statement here? having read the article posted by the OP, it's not safety zone incursions that the FAA is concerned about, it is two planes being belly up to each other while on final (due to steep banking) and therefore theflight crews can't see the other bird to maintain visual separation.


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
it's not safety zone incursions that the FAA is concerned about, it is two planes being belly up to each other while on final (due to steep banking) and therefore theflight crews can't see the other bird to maintain visual separation.


It's not about maintaining visual separation from the other aircraft using the parallel runway/s.

When the runway centerlines are separated by 4,300' or more, you must use standard separation until the pilot has acknowledged the visual approach clearance, from there on no separation is required as long as the airplanes are not crossing one anothers final approach course. Visual separation is not required with the airplane going to the parallel runway, only with the preceeding aircraft landing on the runway you are assigned. There is also no requirement to share traffic information as long as it is advertised on the ATIS or the controller has advised the pilot approaches are being conducted to parallel runways.

Check out 7110.65U, Paragraph 7-4-4, Approaches to Multiple Runways, for a good read.

The 30 degree intercept IMHO is to avoid the overhsoots it would seem, thus avoiding any hard banking as you refer.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinerunner13 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

The problem with this is the approach clearance. You give them the heading to join, then clear them for the approach an that negates the previous heading..

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Overshooting The Final Approach Course
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Great Video On The RNP Approach Trails At Brisbane posted Wed Jun 18 2008 09:13:57 by AAH732UAL
A330 Loud Thumping Just Prior To Final Approach posted Tue Jun 20 2006 17:55:25 by Hrhf1
Planes On Final Approach posted Wed Aug 24 2005 19:08:36 by Aircanada333
Final Approach Speed posted Sun Sep 8 2002 15:45:35 by XXXX10
"Final" Final Approach posted Fri Apr 19 2002 17:58:39 by Joliver
"Final Approach" Illusion? posted Fri Apr 6 2001 02:27:57 by Mr Spaceman
TWA And The Missed Approach! posted Fri Mar 16 2001 05:51:49 by SouthRebels
Final Approach Dead On Or Not? posted Sun Mar 4 2001 03:34:02 by Bryan Becker
What Approach Will The A380 Be Taking Into BHD? posted Sat Sep 5 2009 03:46:29 by Loughrey1
How To Learn The PPL Course Properly? posted Thu Aug 21 2008 14:12:13 by Ajd1992

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format